Topical Clotrimazole in Tinea Pedis

Eb, Smith; Jl, Graham; Ja, Ulrich

doi:10.1097/00007611-197701000-00021

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…9 w2 w17-w19 w22 w24 w28 w37 w40 w41 w44 w45 w49 w51 w54 w56 w60 w107 Blinded outcome assessment was reported in only 10 trials. w8 w18 w22 w30 w31 w37 w41 w49 w54 w61 Only seven trials, however, did not report blinding of participants 8. w17 w25 w26 w32 w47 w48 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…We located 111 papers reporting trials of topical treatments for fungal skin infections, and we included 65 (58.6%) of these in our review 6 – 10 . w1-w60 As one of these papers8 reported three distinct trials, and three papers7 w1 w3 each reported a pair of distinct trials, we included 70 trials in all.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…w1-w60 As one of these papers8 reported three distinct trials, and three papers7 w1 w3 each reported a pair of distinct trials, we included 70 trials in all. Thirty one trials in 29 papers6 – 10 w1-w24 compared a single active treatment with placebo (see website). Twenty seven trials in 26 papers8 w2 w25-w48 compared two active treatments (see website).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirty one trials in 29 papers6 – 10 w1-w24 compared a single active treatment with placebo (see website). Twenty seven trials in 26 papers8 w2 w25-w48 compared two active treatments (see website). Twelve trials w49-w60 compared more than two treatments within the same trial (see website).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Systematic review of topical treatments for fungal infections of the skin and nails of the feet

Hart

Bell-Syer

Crawford

et al. 1999

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To identify and synthesise the evidence for efficacy and cost effectiveness of topical treatments for superficial fungal infections of the skin and nails of the feet. Design Systematic review. Interventions Topical treatments for superficial fungal infections. Main outcome measures Cure confirmed by culture and microscopy for skin and by culture for nails in patients with clinically diagnosed fungal infections. Results Of 126 trials identified in 121 papers, 72 (57.1%) met the inclusion criteria. Placebo controlled trials yielded pooled relative risks of failure to cure skin infections: allylamines (0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.38); azoles (0.54, 0.42 to 0.68); undecenoic acid (0.28, 0.11 to 0.74); and tolnaftate (0.46, 0.17 to 1.22). Although meta-analysis of 11 trials comparing allylamines and azoles showed a relative risk of failure to cure of 0.88 (0.78 to 0.99) in favour of allylamines, there was evidence of language bias. Seven reports in English favoured allylamines (0.79, 0.69 to 0.91), but four reports in foreign languages showed no difference between the two drugs (1.01, 0.90 to 1.13). Neither trial of nail infections showed significant differences between alternative topical treatments. Conclusions Allylamines, azoles, and undecenoic acid were efficacious in placebo controlled trials. There are sufficient comparative trials to judge relative efficacy only between allylamines and azoles. Allylamines cure slightly more infections than azoles but are much more expensive than azoles. The most cost effective strategy is first to treat with azoles or undecenoic acid and to use allylamines only if that fails.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Systematic review of topical treatments for fungal infections of the skin and nails of the feet

Hart

Bell-Syer

Crawford

et al. 1999

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Primary interventions were classified “evidence based” if they fulfilled the criteria for category (i) or (ii), with the result that 81% of patients (82/101) had received evidence based interventions (tables 1 and 2) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33. The remaining 19% (table 3) were judged to have received treatment that had no substantial evidence from our search.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%